I think I’ll assign this to my students next year:

Ergo: Wikipedia is a Massively Multiplayer Online Editing Game played by experts in redundancy, skepticism, pseudoscience, hyperlinking, reverting articles, demanding reliable sources, redundancy, verification, redundancy, identifying original research (which is often quickly denounced in the article talk pages), and initiating subtle flamewars over what is encyclopaedic. The site often exhibits the qualities of the Dada art movements, via the discussion pages attached to all articles; and it can be argued that Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge is a case in point. Wikipedia is a complete waste of time ruled by Dr. Phil, live from a soundstage in Hollywood California. It is a proven scientific fact that after reading this site, Wikipedia sucks.

But the question is, should I make it part of my “wikipedia isn’t really research” handout or add it to my Satire syllabus?